Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Depends what you are defining as a chav? Some people say it is background some people say it means thugs. I say the word chav is a word with no meaning.
    Hmm...dictionary.com lists:

    Main Entry: chav
    Part of Speech: n
    Definition: the lower class; uneducated and ignorant people
    Etymology: perh. Romany chav child
    Usage: derogatory slang




    Furthermore, I didn't state that the lower class are chavs. But, as evidenced by this definition, chavs are (at least usually) a segment of the lower classes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    this is so annoying "poorer" kids get EMA and better grants & burseries already. God its so unfair on the people who work hard both at school and at work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Many thousands of parents are being conned by the looks of it since going to a private school, having a private tutor makes no difference to your educating, because Barry down the road who goes to a state school can get the same grades as you without his parents spending a fortune on his education...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, may I just say that I did deleted what you rightly claimed I said and re-edited it for the reason that it was poorly structured. But I'll give you a reply nevertheless.

    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    Ad Hominem isn’t my thing but that really is a silly thing to say. In what sense was “New Labour” ever touted as a silver bullet to poverty? Challenges do not remain static; there is no finite list to which any government can work its way through. Poverty is relative and it would not be conductive of an adult discussion to compare and talk about poverty over say the past 8 years with what we see today; especially after the numerous ladders which have been thrown down to the lower echelons of society.
    New Labour have a goal to half child poverty by 2010 and to eradiacte child poverty by 2020. Labour have taken 600,000 out so far, missing their goals. Of course there is no final list. But the fact is there are too many failing schools, something which Labour have failed to achieve. Of course there will always be better schools than others, but there are still a huge number of students failing to abtain 5 C's at GCSE.

    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    To that you could say we have seen a decline in social mobility, and we have. That does not negate the fact that statutory obligations now exist and precedents have been set that guarantee education and training up to 19 and entitlement provisions like the winter fuel allowances EMA grants or University grants. Is it perfect no, but who expected perfection?
    Nobody. But I did expect something better. BTW, I should also say that I am a Labour supporter. But the fact that OVER HALF of students do not get 5 GCSE's (including English and Maths) is nowhere near perfection.

    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    Again, this is short sited; discrimination certainly isn’t discrimination as you put it. In your next sentence you say “it’s about picking the fairest option”; in what sense therefore could you start the paragraph with “discrimination is discrimination” as if it were chiefly a negative thing? The fairest option more often than not requires an element of discrimination to re-level the playing field, which i would argue will not be level until we overhaul capitalism. (but thats just me)
    OK, the Capitalism debate is whole new subject and I really don't want to get dragged into that. And yes I agree, that was poorly written. Basically, what I meant to say is that it is a form of positive discrimination that should only in principle atleast, be short term. Like the idea of getting women into under represented professions until the numbers even out.

    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    You conclude with support for the policy as long as it is “put to bed” after a time, again this assumes that such measures are silver bullets to poverty; they are not. Such measures will always be needed. If universities were selecting upon potential such measures wouldn’t be needed in the first place. There is no end game there will always be people in this situation who ought to be given an opportunity to change their lot.)
    I think good schools and ending child poverty is a possibility. I take your point though.

    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    I personally don’t think a two grade inflation is required just simply a statuary requirement that universities select a certain percentage of pupils from certain bands within society. With a top up system of academically untapped students and bourgeois spoilt brats.
    Fair point. Hopefully this is one of Mandys other considerations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i just read the article in the Sunday Times about it and am now thoroughly depressed.

    i go to a reasonably good state school but one that isnt used to sending people to good unis and am now at even more of a disadvantage (especially as i wanted to apply to Leeds and that just has to be one of the pilot unis for this stupid scheme)

    my slip up in my AS exams are now going to be even more disatorous for me

    *end of moping + self pity*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its a ridiculous idea. It would be better to be properly taught to get the grades, instead of being given a grade. The student will feel as though more is achieved with a feeling of satisfaction to know that the grade was fairly achieved. 'Hear you are, you just scraped an E grade, but have a C, even though you have not made any effort to learn anything'.
    Offline

    1
    I can't believe it.

    I think this system doesn't take into account the financial systems made available to students from lower-income families. I could (perhaps) understand if gaining a place on certain courses, or acceptance into Universities was based purely on financials, and the only think stopping certain students was how much cash they had access to. But it's not.

    However, I think it's ludicrous to even consider such options. I mean, if a student was committed to gaining entrance to a highly competitive course, the onus is on them to gain the required grades. I think it makes a mockery of the current entry system if certain students are (again) given an advantage.

    It's about time that Labour realises that life isn't always plain sailing. Once these students have their degrees, then what? Are employers going to be asked to favour them once more?

    I say tackle the problem head on. Improve the educational system!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by e_clark)
    Oh and life's unfair, get over it :P
    Of course life is unfair, but shouldn't the government be trying to make it as fair (not equal) as possible?

    (Original post by e_clark)
    My mum worked her bum off when we were little to save up to pay for a private school education for us
    But why should money and education mix? I'm against private schools in principle, but in reality understand scrapping them wouldn't work. (And for those who have followed my posts previously then yes I have changed my mind!) But, I have to say, if that was one of the reasons for keeping them, I'd be against it fully. What has your parents working hard got to do with? Why should you get a better education because your parents working hard? Many poor families work damn hard as well.

    (Original post by e_clark)
    and we are just over the income limit so dont receive grants or anything, and yeh we struggle, but I worked damn HARD for my grades, and noone is going to take that achievement away from me by saying "oh its cos you went to private school" - no, no, I WORKED for my grades, as anyone can do anywhere!
    Of course you did well! Anybody who says that you didn't is being unfair. But the point is, it has been proven that those who go to state schools and get the same grades as those who go to private schools, do better at university.

    (Original post by e_clark)
    Equally some people at my school didn't work hard and therefore didn't get good grades.
    Nobody is saying that, though.

    (Original post by e_clark)
    anyone can get the grades they want from any school if they just put the effort in!
    Oh come on!! If that is the case why did your parents send you to private school? Why waste all of that hard earned cash (especially if money was tight) if you could of achieved those grades at state school?

    (Original post by e_clark)
    And life isn't fair and equal and never will be, the government should stop discriminating against middle class families who have worked hard to send their children to private school, its their money and their choice.
    New Labour are not socialists. They do not want equality. Tony Blair sent his kid to a private school. However, what they want is equality of opportunity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by e_clark)
    I just love how they talk about "positive discrimination" - its still discrimination whether its positive or negative and is therefore inherently wrong!

    Oh and life's unfair, get over it :P My mum worked her bum off when we were little to save up to pay for a private school education for us, and we are just over the income limit so dont receive grants or anything, and yeh we struggle, but I worked damn HARD for my grades, and noone is going to take that achievement away from me by saying "oh its cos you went to private school" - no, no, I WORKED for my grades, as anyone can do anywhere! Equally some people at my school didn't work hard and therefore didn't get good grades. And if my mum has saved up that money to pay for me to go to private school thats her choice, its her money, she has worked for it so can spend it how she likes, and I'd have been really peeved if some tosser from state school who hadn't worked half as hard as I did got into uni ahead of me simply cos of this grade bump, its ridiculous - anyone can get the grades they want from any school if they just put the effort in! And life isn't fair and equal and never will be, the government should stop discriminating against middle class families who have worked hard to send their children to private school, its their money and their choice.
    It's not discrimination if a group is disadvantaged by the system. There's a reason why this idea has been proposed - it's because the education system isn't working for the working-class. Your statement that the government is discriminating against middle-class families is laughable - middle-class children get an easy ride compared to working-class students. You also say that private school is a choice, which is nice if you can afford to send your children there. However, I find this hypocritical as you oppose the idea of topping up less advantaged students grades. So it's OK for rich people to have a way to artificially improve their grades, but not poor people? Is it because they can pay for this improvement?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Reinstate the 11+.
    Bring back Grammar schools.
    Eliminate this nonsense of social mobility.
    We are not equal - Labour needs to get over that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BetterThanHeaven)
    Reinstate the 11+.
    Bring back Grammar schools.
    Eliminate this nonsense of social mobility.
    We are not equal - Labour needs to get over that.
    New Labour have never tried to create equality! Nor did Old Labour for that fact. Otherwise they could of tried to of banned private schools in the 1970's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    New Labour have never tried to create equality! Nor did Old Labour for that fact. Otherwise they could of tried to of banned private schools in the 1970's.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...nequal-society
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BetterThanHeaven)
    Reinstate the 11+.
    Bring back Grammar schools.
    Eliminate this nonsense of social mobility.
    We are not equal - Labour needs to get over that.
    I don't understand your post. I want to bring back grammar schools and the 11+, and I agree we aren't all equal. But surely we should aim to increase social mobility?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BetterThanHeaven)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...nequal-society
    I don't understand your point?
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It's not discrimination if a group is disadvantaged by the system. There's a reason why this idea has been proposed - it's because the education system isn't working for the working-class. Your statement that the government is discriminating against middle-class families is laughable - middle-class children get an easy ride compared to working-class students. You also say that private school is a choice, which is nice if you can afford to send your children there. However, I find this hypocritical as you oppose the idea of topping up less advantaged students grades. So it's OK for rich people to have a way to artificially improve their grades, but not poor people? Is it because they can pay for this improvement?
    If the education system isn't working for the working class, shouldn't Labour be doing something to ensure that it does work? Perhaps by improving it to the extent that these students can attain an A (etc.) grade?

    If the idea of this proposal is to perhaps take a C candidate and/or make their grade an A (equivalent) in the application process is quite unbelievable. If a prerequisite of gaining acceptance to a course is an A grade, then surely it's advantageous (in the long run) to ensure the student is to an A grade standard? It's pointless fast-tracking a student into such course, if the work is so demanding that they're going to suffer or find it difficult to cope.

    Private School is a choice. If a parent can afford to send their child to such an establishment that offers it, then I don't see how that can be held against the individual? I mean, at the end of the day, if the parent has worked hard to enable their child the opportunity, then why shouldn't they utilise it?

    It seems to me this of more a case of crying; 'It's not fair'. Life isn't fair. FFS! You either work and get something, or you don't get anything at all!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexlemon2)
    I would assume it would be one of their grades bumped up by 2, surely it cannot be as rediculous to assume a CCC grade student would be bumped up to AAA :eek:

    Rediculous proposal.
    Sorry if someone has already pointed this out as I can't be bothered to read the whole thread to check, but it means two grades as in an ABB offer rather than an AAA one- knocking two down one notch, rather than all of them down too. It says that in the main article. Not defending or criticising it, just saying that its not as drastic as it might sound.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    I don't understand your post. I want to bring back grammar schools and the 11+, and I agree we aren't all equal. But surely we should aim to increase social mobility?
    The context in which Labour thinks it should be achieved is ridiculous.
    Everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve, Labour finds it very hard to accept that not every is able to achieve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jess041288)
    Sorry if someone has already pointed this out as I can't be bothered to read the whole thread to check, but it means two grades as in an ABB offer rather than an AAA one- knocking two down one notch, rather than all of them down too. It says that in the main article. Not defending or criticising it, just saying that its not as drastic as it might sound.
    Yeap, however some people evidently haven't read the other articles, (the BBC one was crap).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It's not discrimination if a group is disadvantaged by the system. There's a reason why this idea has been proposed - it's because the education system isn't working for the working-class. Your statement that the government is discriminating against middle-class families is laughable - middle-class children get an easy ride compared to working-class students. You also say that private school is a choice, which is nice if you can afford to send your children there. However, I find this hypocritical as you oppose the idea of topping up less advantaged students grades. So it's OK for rich people to have a way to artificially improve their grades, but not poor people? Is it because they can pay for this improvement?

    No group is disadvantaged by the system provided by government. Disregarding minor policies like EMA, everyone has equal access to the same schools and same resources provided by the state - this is exactly as it should be.

    If some parents choose to send their children to private school because they can afford it, it is not the role of government to step in and lower the standards for poor children by allowing them to compete for the same places without the competency that the more privileged can obtain. Rather, it's to ensure that state schooling works in such a way that anyone, should they have the ability and aspiration, can achieve top levels of success. Anything else is an admission that state schooling provided by the government has failed its pupils.

    In what sort of backwards world does punishing a child because his or her parents are successful count as lessening discrimination?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BetterThanHeaven)
    The context in which Labour thinks it should be achieved is ridiculous.
    Everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve, Labour finds it very hard to accept that not every is able to achieve.
    Oh, well yes I agree. But that's not really what social mobility means. Or at least it's not what I thought it meant.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 13, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.